Alfalfa County commissioners renew $40,000 assessor contract with TASC after contested valuations debate

Alfalfa County commissioners voted to renew the county assessor's contract with third‑party appraiser TASC for $40,000, covering the fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30, after an extended public discussion about large differences between TASC's valuations and independent appraisals.

The vote followed public comment from Mister Spears, a representative of the Burlington School District, who urged the commission to seek competitive bids and questioned why the county pays $40,000 for appraisals that sometimes differ sharply from independent values. "How could someone that we're paying $40,000 to be so wrong?" Spears asked the commission.

Jennifer, Alfalfa County assessor, responded with a detailed explanation of the assessor's use of TASC, describing legal guidance and the practical limits assessors face when valuing complex oil, gas and wind assets. She told commissioners that an Oklahoma attorney general opinion from 1980 allows the county assessor to enter contracts with independent appraisers without advertising bids when the excise board has appropriated the funds and the county commissioners approve the contract. "The county assessor need not advertise bids prior to entering into contracts with independent appraisers, which are subject to the approval of county commissioners and have been budgeted from or by the county excise board," she said.

In the discussion, Jennifer said TASC currently represents dozens of counties and that, for 2025, TASC valued approximately $376.9 million in full market assets in Alfalfa County. She said that translates to about $45 million in net assessed value and, using the county portion of the mill levy, roughly $491,000 in county general tax revenue. She told the commission that TASC's contract — about 2 percent of an assumed $2 million county budget — is small relative to the tax revenue TASC's valuations support.

Jennifer and Mister Spears also debated why valuations for some companies settled well below earlier county assessments. Jennifer said several companies did not provide income and production data needed for an income‑approach valuation and that some settlement values became available only through litigation. She described difficulty finding independent appraisers willing to testify in court against large oil and gas companies and cited outside expert input (emails and reports from industry and assessors in other counties) that supported using specialized third‑party appraisers for complex personal property and energy assets.

Spears told commissioners he wanted more transparency and consideration of competitive bids because large discrepancies in valuation can affect local school and county revenues. Jennifer acknowledged community concerns and said she would meet with local officials to review details and answer further questions.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to renew the contract with TASC; another commissioner seconded the motion, and commissioners voted in the affirmative. The motion passed and the contract renewal was signed.

The meeting record indicates the issue prompted substantial public and staff discussion about the technical challenges of valuing energy industry property, the county's limited authority to compel private companies to provide certain income reports, and the financial stakes for county and school budgets. Commissioners did not direct staff to solicit competing bids at the meeting, but Jennifer offered to follow up with district leaders and counsel to provide more information.